以"特朗普推论"为核心的新门罗主义，正重塑大宗商品市场格局。 据追风交易台，西南证券在最新宏观与地缘政治研究中指出，2026年初，美国外交与安全政策出现一次方向性而非策略性的转向：以"特朗普 推论"为核心的新门罗主义，被正式写入《国家安全战略》，美国将西半球重新确立为其地缘战略与资源安全的优先区域。 研报强调，这一变化的关键不在于"回到拉美"，而在于美国如何在全球战略收缩中，重建一个"资源—航道—产业链"可被直接控制的定价腹 地。在这一逻辑下，关键矿产、能源资源与航运通道不再只是经济变量，而被系统性地纳入国家安全与军事威慑框架。 由此，大宗商品，尤其是铜、锂、稀土、能源与贵金属，其定价基础正在发生根本变化： 价格不再仅反映边际供需，而是开始反映"可获得性、可控制性与政治可靠性"。 这意味着，一个以"安全溢价"为长期锚的大宗商品新周期，正在成形。 "特朗普推论"：门罗主义的当代表达 西南证券在研报中指出，2025年版《国家安全战略》中，美国首次将区域战略优先级明确排序为"西半球优先—印太竞争—欧亚稳定"，并系统 性提出"特朗普推论"，作为对传统门罗主义的当代升级。 与19世纪"防止欧洲干预"的门罗主义不同，这一 ...

原标题：特朗普：若遭暗杀，将把伊朗"从地球上抹去"！美航母已抵达中东，建国250年只有16年没打 仗，美国的"武力执念"为何这么强？ 特朗普公开警告称若伊朗策划对其暗杀，美国将把伊朗"从地球上抹去"，并已向中东增派航母打击群， 加剧地区紧张。伊朗方面回应称有能力对任何侵略作出强硬反击，同时透露两国正通过"非正式"渠道进 行接触，但强调当前并无固定谈判机制，局势仍在动态演变中。 据小央视频1月27日报道，特朗普近日宣称，如果伊朗胆敢策划针对他的暗杀行动，美国将把伊朗"从地 球上抹去"。 伊朗：与美国以"非正式"方式互通消息 美国总统特朗普26日称，伊朗局势仍"处于变化之中"，他已派遣一支比美军在委内瑞拉周边海域规模更 大的舰队到中东地区，同时认为伊朗确实希望达成协议。 美国《纽约时报》26日以一名不愿公开姓名的美国官员为消息源报道，美国海军"亚伯拉罕·林肯"号航 空母舰打击群已经驶入美军中央司令部在西印度洋的责任区。如果白宫下令打击伊朗，理论上，该航母 打击群在"一两天内"就能发起军事行动。 阿克西奥斯新闻网站援引知情人士报道，特朗普尚未作出最终决定。他本周可能会举行更多内部磋商， 并听取关于军事选项的汇报。随 ...

据小央视频1月27日报道，特朗普近日宣称，如果伊朗胆敢策划针对他的暗杀行动，美国将把伊朗"从地 球上抹去"。 美国总统特朗普26日称，伊朗局势仍"处于变化之中"，他已派遣一支比美军在委内瑞拉周边海域规模更 大的舰队到中东地区，同时认为伊朗确实希望达成协议。 美国《纽约时报》26日以一名不愿公开姓名的美国官员为消息源报道，美国海军"亚伯拉罕·林肯"号航 空母舰打击群已经驶入美军中央司令部在西印度洋的责任区。如果白宫下令打击伊朗，理论上，该航母 打击群在"一两天内"就能发起军事行动。 阿克西奥斯新闻网站援引知情人士报道，特朗普尚未作出最终决定。他本周可能会举行更多内部磋商， 并听取关于军事选项的汇报。随着美军航空母舰打击群到来，这些选项将进一步丰富。 报道说，该航母打击群包括三艘导弹驱逐舰和F-35C型隐形战斗机、F/A-18E/F型战斗机、EA-18G电子 战飞机等航母舰载机。美军还向中东地区增派F-15E战斗机、加油机和导弹防御系统。 伊朗：与美国以"非正式"方式互通消息 当地时间26日，伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃就地区局势特别是美以军事威胁等议题举行新闻发布会。 巴加埃强调，伊朗比以往更有能力，将对任何侵略行径 ...

Group 1: Geopolitical Trends - The intensification of global power competition has highlighted the security and scarcity of strategic minerals, leading to a continuous reassessment of their value as core assets in geopolitical games[3] - The U.S. has added copper and silicon to its list of critical minerals and plans to establish a $2.5 billion "strategic resilience reserve" to secure these resources[3] - Strategic resources such as copper, silver, lithium, cobalt, nickel, gallium, germanium, palladium, silicon, tungsten, antimony, and rare earths are expected to experience significant price volatility, especially during periods of heightened geopolitical risk[3] Group 2: Economic Relationships - The U.S. remains the primary trading partner for Latin America, with exports to the U.S. rising from approximately $198.61 billion in 2002 to $599.97 billion in 2023, although the share of total exports has decreased from 57% to 44%[26] - In contrast, exports to China have increased significantly, from $6.5 billion in 2002 to approximately $192.8 billion in 2023, raising its share of total exports from less than 2% to around 14%[26] - The U.S. is still the largest investor in Latin America, with investments accounting for about 38% of total foreign direct investment in 2024, up from 34% in 2023[33] Group 3: Political Dynamics - The political landscape in Latin America is shifting rightward, influenced by economic stagnation and increased U.S. geopolitical influence, with significant elections expected in 2026[6] - The U.S. has engaged in a series of trade agreements with Latin American countries, emphasizing comprehensive, secure, and exclusive frameworks to prevent non-Western competitors from accessing critical assets and supply chains[20] - The Trump administration's "Monroe Doctrine" has re-emerged, focusing on military threats and trade ties to consolidate U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere[12]

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions of the United States regarding Venezuela, including the forceful control of President Maduro, challenge the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and expose U.S. hegemonic tendencies, potentially destabilizing the current international order [2][3][5]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and International Reactions - The U.S. military's forceful control of Venezuelan President Maduro has drawn significant international attention, with experts highlighting that this reflects U.S. hegemonic behavior and could inspire similar actions from other nations, further undermining global peace and stability [3][5]. - Chinese officials have condemned the U.S. actions as a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and a serious threat to international relations, calling for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife [3][4]. - The incident is seen as a practical application of the Monroe Doctrine under Trump's administration, with experts noting that while the U.S. demonstrates military strength, it also depletes its resources and raises questions about future developments [3][4]. Group 2: Implications for International Order - The U.S. actions in Venezuela signify a severe challenge to the liberal international order established post-World War II, with experts warning that the world may revert to a state of power politics reminiscent of the 19th century [4][5]. - The recent U.S. National Security Strategy report indicates a shift in U.S. foreign policy that could lead to increased instability in international relations, as unilateral actions may undermine multilateral governance [5][6]. - Analysts suggest that the U.S. strategy may embolden traditional allies in the Asia-Pacific region, leading to increased military and political activities that could provoke tensions with China [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine in the form of "Trump's Monroe Doctrine," emphasizing the U.S. intention to reassert its dominance in the Western Hemisphere, particularly through military intervention and economic pressure on Latin American countries [1][4]. Historical Context - The Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823, aimed to prevent European powers from colonizing the Americas and asserted that the U.S. would not interfere in European affairs [2]. - The doctrine has evolved through two significant interpretations: Roosevelt's Corollary in 1904, which justified U.S. intervention in Latin America, and Trump's interpretation in 2025, which marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy [3][4]. New Characteristics of "New Monroe Doctrine" - The "New Monroe Doctrine" is characterized by a more aggressive and self-serving approach, prioritizing U.S. interests and security over traditional principles of non-interference and anti-colonialism [6]. - The U.S. now views the Western Hemisphere as an "absolute security zone," focusing on territorial expansion, resource extraction, and control of strategic assets [6][7]. Military and Economic Strategies - The U.S. employs a combination of military deployment, economic pressure, and sanctions to achieve its objectives, marking a departure from the political manipulation and diplomatic isolation strategies of the past [6][7]. - Recent actions include threats of tariffs against Colombia and sanctions on Brazilian officials, as well as military maneuvers in Venezuela, highlighting the aggressive nature of U.S. policy [7][8]. Focus on Venezuela - Venezuela is identified as a primary target due to its vast oil reserves and alliances with countries like China and Russia, which challenge U.S. dominance in the region [8]. - The U.S. has previously attempted to orchestrate a coup against the Venezuelan government and has deployed military assets in the vicinity, indicating a clear focus on this nation [8]. Political Implications - The shift towards a more interventionist policy is seen as a response to domestic political pressures and the rise of leftist movements in Latin America, with the U.S. aiming to secure its influence and counter perceived threats [9][10]. - The article suggests that this new approach is a pragmatic adjustment to maintain U.S. hegemony in the face of global competition and domestic challenges [10].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government's interest in Greenland is driven by strategic, military, and resource considerations, with recent actions indicating a desire to exert control over the territory, which is currently an autonomous region of Denmark [1][4][5]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Statements - President Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy for Greenland, emphasizing the island's importance to U.S. national security and expressing a desire for it to become part of the U.S. [1][2] - The U.S. plans to transfer Greenland from the European Command to the Northern Command by 2025, which raises political sensitivities regarding its status as a European territory [2][3]. - The U.S. has a historical interest in Greenland, having attempted to purchase it in 1867 and 1946, and currently maintains military bases there under a defense agreement with Denmark [2][3]. Group 2: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Greenland is viewed as strategically valuable due to its rich natural resources, including rare earth elements, oil, and gas, which are crucial for military and semiconductor industries [4][5]. - The island's geographical position is significant for U.S. missile warning systems and military operations in the Arctic region [4][5]. - The U.S. aims to enhance its military presence and intelligence capabilities in Greenland as part of its broader Arctic strategy [5][6]. Group 3: International Reactions - Denmark and other European nations have criticized the U.S. for its attempts to exert influence over Greenland, reaffirming the island's status as part of Denmark and emphasizing respect for international law [5][6]. - The U.S. actions have been interpreted as a form of "predatory diplomacy," straining transatlantic relations and raising concerns about U.S. unilateralism in international affairs [7][8]. - The Danish Defense Intelligence Service has identified the U.S. as a potential security threat, reflecting growing unease about U.S. pressure on allies [7].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government's interest in Greenland is driven by strategic, military, and resource considerations, with recent actions indicating a desire to exert control over the territory, which is currently an autonomous region of Denmark [1][5][6]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Statements - President Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the U.S. envoy to Greenland, emphasizing the island's importance to U.S. national security and expressing a desire for Greenland to become part of the U.S. [1] - The U.S. plans to transfer Greenland from the European Command to the Northern Command by 2025, which raises political sensitivities regarding its status as a European territory [2][3]. - The U.S. has a historical interest in Greenland, having attempted to purchase the island in 1867 and again in 1946, and currently maintains military bases there [2][3]. Group 2: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Greenland is viewed as a strategic asset due to its rich natural resources, including rare earth elements, oil, and gas, which are crucial for military and semiconductor industries [5][6]. - The island's geographical location is significant for U.S. missile defense systems and military operations in the Arctic region [5][6]. - The U.S. aims to enhance its military presence and intelligence capabilities in Greenland, viewing it as a critical area for national security [7]. Group 3: International Reactions - Denmark and the Greenlandic government have criticized the U.S. actions, asserting that Greenland's territorial integrity is protected by international law [6][8]. - European nations, including Norway, Finland, and France, have expressed support for Denmark's stance on Greenland, emphasizing respect for sovereignty [6][8]. - The U.S. approach has been described as "predatory diplomacy," straining transatlantic relations and raising concerns about U.S. intentions among its allies [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the U.S. military operation to forcibly detain Venezuelan President Maduro, highlighting its significance as a demonstration of U.S. power in a multipolar world, signaling to leftist leaders in Latin America that they have no choice in their alliances [1] Group 1 - The operation involved a sudden explosion in Caracas, followed by a citywide blackout and airstrikes on military targets, culminating in the capture of Maduro and his wife [1] - The imagery of Maduro being blindfolded and handcuffed was released, creating a global shockwave [1] - This action is framed not merely as a military adventure but as a strategic move by the U.S. to reinforce its "absolute security zone" amid a global contraction of its military presence [1] Group 2 - The article warns against the misconception that a reduced U.S. military footprint equates to a more benevolent approach, suggesting that a focused and domestic-oriented U.S. could be more dangerous [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. military intervention in Venezuela aims to control the country's oil resources and facilitate a regime change, marking a significant escalation in U.S.-Venezuela relations [1][6]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Strategies - The U.S. has escalated sanctions against Venezuela, imposing a 25% tariff on countries purchasing Venezuelan oil and forcibly selling the country's assets in the U.S. [1][6]. - The U.S. has redefined Maduro as a terrorist and the Venezuelan government as a foreign terrorist organization to justify military actions [1][6]. - Military actions have evolved from targeting drug trafficking vessels to large-scale operations, including air and ground strikes to capture Maduro and his wife [1][6]. Group 2: Political Implications in Latin America - The U.S. aims to reshape the political landscape in Latin America, particularly targeting leftist governments in the region, as part of a broader strategy to establish a new political order aligned with U.S. interests [2][7]. - The U.S. plans to dismantle the "Bolivarian Alliance," a leftist coalition in Latin America, following changes in Venezuela's political situation [3][8]. - The intervention is expected to influence upcoming elections in Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil, potentially leading to a shift towards right-wing politics in the region [4][9]. Group 3: Broader Geopolitical Context - The U.S. intervention reflects a shift from globalism to pragmatism in its foreign policy, with a focus on reasserting dominance in its "backyard" [2][7]. - The political changes in Venezuela may have significant spillover effects, potentially accelerating a rightward shift in Latin American politics and challenging leftist movements in neighboring countries [4][9]. - The rise of conservative alliances in Latin America, as indicated by Argentina's President Milei, aligns with U.S. interests and the goals of the "New Monroe Doctrine" [4][10].